Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alison (talk | contribs) at 23:36, 20 October 2008 (Changed protection level for "User talk:Smalljim": Let's do this ( (expires 23:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)) (indefinite))). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How to use talk pages: (guidelines from Template:User talk top)

• Please continue any conversation where it was started.

Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here.

I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• If you want to initiate a conversation, please create a new heading here.

Continue existing conversations under existing headings.

Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.

• Indent your comments when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
• Sign your comments automatically using ~~~~.

Talk page archives: Archive 1 | Archive 2

Thank you

Thank you very much for removing the vandalism from my user page. It is greatly appreciated. Alanraywiki (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem! I'm enjoying using huggle for the first time.  —SMALLJIM  22:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for removing apparent vandalism from my user page. (D.c.camero (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC))

My pleasure. Rather atypical vandalism that one. It's not clear to me what caused the user to do it.  —SMALLJIM  18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello SmallJim

I noticed you reverted an IPs contributions of:

The TSG has been referred to as the "Thick and Stupid Group" by other Metropolitan Police officers due to the percerption that the group attracts physically stronger, but intellectually weaker, officers.

I reverted this passage too, thinking what enyclopedic value does this have? Although it has been referenced in a "ship - Shoddy" fashion, it is still referenced, but it is also still silly. Do you think it should be taken off? ] (] · ])☺ 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into this - will get back to you.  —SMALLJIM  10:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Much appreciated. ] (] · ])☺ 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the book exists, according to Amazon.co.uk and Google Books searches. I've added the ISBN and changed to a proper citation template in the article. The issues that remain are: (1) is the claimed content actually in the book? And (2) is the book a reliable source? I can't comment on (1) because I haven't seen the book, though we must assume good faith on the part of the editor(s) who added it. As for (2), well, the customer reviews on Amazon suggest that it is at least written in a sensationalist style - I'll probably edit the article further to specifically attribute the statement.  —SMALLJIM  11:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Have done so, and also copied this thread to Talk:Territorial Support Group where further discussion should take place.  —SMALLJIM  11:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Master Musicians of Joujouka

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of "joujoukatruth". The whole Joujouka/Jajouka issue is quite acrimonious. It seems that the Jajouka faction is taking advantage of the fact that the Joujouka faction is busy this weekend at a festival in the village to make massive changes to their page. Jonur (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help on a "just passing by" basis whilst cleaning up vandalism. Yes, a quick look at the pages involved does show that there has been acrimony for some time. Pardon me if I choose not to get involved in that. There's no vandalism going on right now though, is there?  —SMALLJIM  17:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

justinfr

Thanks for the revert to my user page. Cheers... justinfr (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I missed this. Huggle and I were happy to oblige.  —SMALLJIM  18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

I have removed the section again. The burden of proof should be on the contributor. I actually do not see why User:Thedustbuster should fight so vehemently here (doesn't seem to be usual vandalism) unless he is onto something. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problem with that in view of his last message. I'm no expert on copyvios, but am looking into the procedure.  —SMALLJIM  22:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this comment by the author of the passage in question resolves the issue for now. For reference: WP:CP and Misplaced Pages:Copyvio#Copyright owners.  —SMALLJIM  22:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Sri Chinmoy

Thank you for your help deterring the recent wave of ommisions of controversial accounts on the Sri Chinmoy article. I placed an RfC on the talk page yesterday and after the most recent activity from today a request for protection. If you have any advice regarding how to proceed, I'd appreciate it. -Fendersmasher (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I was just reverting evident vandalism with huggle, and I didn't look at the article, but I'll see if I can contribute anything useful to the RfC.  —SMALLJIM  13:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.206.115.6

Hello. This IP which you recently blocked has again had a fit on its own talk page. You might want to have a look at it once more. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've put the talk page on watch and if he persists I'll take appropriate action.  —SMALLJIM  08:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey

You are a complete failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.27.42 (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Mikayla12

Hi, I just reverted some vandalism on the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63) article by User:Mikayla12 - Talk and was about to place a vandalism warning on her (?) talk page when I saw your notice. Since I am not an admin I though you might like to know about it, given that your notice is a final warning. Nick Thorne 22:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Nick. Unfortunately I've only just seen it, and I don't think it would be reasonable to block on a small lapse like that after this much delay, so it looks like the user gets another chance. I'll keep an eye out for further infractions though.  —SMALLJIM  13:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have semi-protected your talk page for 5 hours to give you a break from all the vandalism. Tiptoety 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's appreciated, but not necessary - it doesn't bother me; I know who it is, and while he's doing this he's not vandalising elsewhere. So unless allowing this to continue is against some guideline of which I'm unaware, could I ask you to remove the protection, please. Thanks!  —SMALLJIM  20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.  Done Tiptoety 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Small bug: Adds top to user name

Hi there. The bug report that you filed for huggle named "Small bug: Adds top to user name" has been resolved. I hope you see the changes in the new version. If you have any other issues with huggle please report them as this is the only way the program can get batter. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help cleaning up my talk page following the vandalism! Mrh30 (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure - good ol' huggle, eh?  —SMALLJIM  10:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jay's Grave

Well, technically, you were right in your edit summary here - but I tend to follow the WP:BURDEN rule of sources. Where people talk about ghosts and legends, there's a huge chance of phrases being included like "mysteriously appearing" and so on. Well done on changing this to "no-one admits to putting them there." - much better and scientific! I'll take a page from your book from now on. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't think that if you had just added a couple of {{fact}} templates I'd have been so motivated to act, so, whatever your rationale, the end result is that Misplaced Pages has benefited. If only it was a guaranteed method of improving articles!  —SMALLJIM  20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of Disability and Bioethics

Hello Jim!

As it seems handling the majority of the CSD requests for the moment, i hope you don't mine if i ask some advice regarding the above newpage. The page looks very well developed but when reading it i found multiple problems - First it contains a major amount of (praise) PoV, and second about half the article seems to miss the subject matter as a whole. As the article was created by user:InstituteSDB (WP:UN violation) i am currently in doubt what i should do with the page: It seems ok to CSD for advertising, but at the same time a few maintenance tags might also help. As i already tagged two borderline articles today i rather not tag a third without having a second opinion, to prevent any deletionism outburst from my side.

With kind regards, Excirial 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I think you must have checked my contribs just as I was deleting a batch of new articles as vandalism. I'm not really an expert on CSD; I've spent most of today on anti-vandalism patrol with huggle. However, after looking at the article, I don't think it can be said to clearly match any of the CSD criteria. There are obvious COI issues though. A quick google suggests that this is a fairly new organisation - there are only 17 ghits here, and none of them seem to be "third party reliable" sources. So there's PROD and AfD - I'd guess that a PROD would be quickly removed, so the logical step would seem to be to put it up for AfD on Notability grounds. Hope this helps: it's a quick response, dinner beckons!  —SMALLJIM  16:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh well. CSD G11. Twice. Diversity of opinion is definitely one of WP's strengths…  —SMALLJIM  10:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

History of Dover

Hi Smalljim! I have just returned to have a look at this article, which I first moved from the main Dover article. If I am correct, by looking at the history of the article, it would appear that you have added the "unreferenced" tag to it in February, and am therefore a little puzzled, since at the end of the article there were ten! In addition, you appear to have added a quantity of text, which in itself is obviously a good thing, but few of them have references. Perhaps you would care to comment? Peter Shearan (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm, see the article's talk page and your earlier comment here!  —SMALLJIM  14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)